Anyone still using film?

407 Views 28 Replies 11 Participants Last post by mbodell, Sep 2, 2009

ridinhome

Discussion Starter · Aug 31, 2009 (Edited)

There's been some good discussion about DSLRs on this forum but I was wondering whether people on here are still using film. My brother recently gave me his EOS 350D, which I've been using with a Canon 50mm F1.8. Maybe I just don't get digital SLR photography but I haven't been too happy with the results. A little too soft for my liking (see an example below). Could be the lens - I heard that the 50mm Canon is a bit hit or miss (what do you expect for $100?)

Anyways, I dusted off an old Canon A1 kit which I've had in my cupboard but never really used. I have the standard Canon 50mm F1.8 FD lens, a 70-210 f4 and a 35mm f2.8. Also using the Motordrive MA and have a Canon 199A Speedlite, but haven't taken any indoor shots yet. I love the feel of the camera. My dad has one and as a kid I used to sneak it out of his cupboard when he was out of the house so I could play with it. Thank god I didn't break it!

I took the A1 out yesterday and took some shots in a local park, without the Motordrive and with just the 50mm + a Hoya Skylight 1B. Gotta, say - great camera for photojournalism. Unobtrusive, lets you blend into the background.

Since I have a decent set of FD lenses, I'm tempted to pick up a used T90 body. B&H has one for about $180, in 8+ condition. Still have a long way to go towards refamiliarizing myself with film, but I'm thinking about using the A1 for black and white (am currently using some Ilford Delta 100) and using the T90 for color. Thoughts? I don't really care about the 1/4000 shutter speed, though having something faster than the 1/1000 on the A1 would be nice. Am taken with the idea of the 1/250 flash sync, though, and I've heard good things about the multi-spot metering, but would love to hear how anyone else found it.

Also, any comments on film choices would be great. I've always used Kodak Gold 100 / 200 in the past, with mixed results.

See less See more

Save

21 - 29 of 29 Posts

Anthonyd5189

· #21 · Sep 2, 2009

I'm taking an intro photography class this spring, they use film. We get to develop it ourselves as well.

Save

sqchram

· #22 · Sep 2, 2009

When I last used film I the hot choice was Fuji Provia 100f.

The Canon 50mm f/1.8 II is an awesome lens - and even better for the money.

Take a look at how it compares to the $1,600 Canon 50mm f/1.2 L

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Lens - Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 L USM Lens Comparison - ISO 12233 Resolution Chart Results

Save

mbodell

· #23 · Sep 2, 2009

Most 50mm lens will be sharp be design since they are a 1:1 ratio to 35 mm and they are the easiest to manufacture/design.

The best place to spend the money on the pro series is when you get to the tele or wide angle. (or zoom lenses) You will notice the difference immediately. Also the contrast/clarity of the lenses is noticeably better.

Save

ridinhome

Discussion Starter · #24 · Sep 2, 2009

mbodell said:
Most 50mm lens will be sharp be design since they are a 1:1 ratio to 35 mm and they are the easiest to manufacture/design.

Pardon my ignorance but is that still the case with a non-full frame DSLR? The 350D has a crop factor of 1.6x, I think so would that impact the sharpness of a 50mm?

Save

ridinhome

Discussion Starter · #25 · Sep 2, 2009 (Edited)

jconly said:
So, if you're shootin RAW with your DSLR, and things are looking a little soft right from the start compared to a JPEG, chances are it's because you're not applying your capture sharpening.

Right now I'm shooting both RAW and JPEG (Large format).

Another (possibly stupid) question. Given the fact that you can pretty much achieve any effect in Photoshop these days, why would you use a filter with a digital camera? Or am I being simplistic?

Save

mbodell

· #26 · Sep 2, 2009 (Edited)

Well optically non full frame digital cameras don't use the full width of the lens. Basically the sensor area is smaller than 35mm film. So you don't get the vignetting and the image is cropped. I still think it will technically be a 1:1 ratio optically, but I would think the cropping effect is what makes it look like 80mm and changes the ratios.

I don't think they have ever made a new fixed 50 equiv. for the cropped sensor size.

Save

jconly

· #27 · Sep 2, 2009

mbodell said:
Most 50mm lens will be sharp be design since they are a 1:1 ratio to 35 mm and they are the easiest to manufacture/design.

I'm not sure if saying a lens has a 1:1 ration to the film size is really a good way of phrasing things. Honestly, I'm not really even sure how to interpret that.

Every lens projects a CIRCLE of light on the film plane. Every 35mm (film size) lens projects a circle large enough to cover the surface of the film. A medium format (120mm film) camera lens projects a larger circle, and so forth.

ridinhome said:
Pardon my ignorance but is that still the case with a non-full frame DSLR? The 350D has a crop factor of 1.6x, I think so would that impact the sharpness of a 50mm?

This image that is the circle of light, which is vertically flipped from what's seen by our eye, is generally sharpest in the center of the circle, and as light falls off on the edges, it gets softer.

With your 1.6x crop size sensor, which is smaller than a piece of 35mm film, the sensor is only seeing light projected onto it from a smaller portion of this image circle... that is, it's using less of the image circle, so it's actually eliminating the softer edges of the circle.

That's why if you were to take one of the new DX lenses (not sure what Canon calls them... but the ones designed specifically for the 1.6 crop sensors) and mount it onto a 35mm size imaging area, you would see vignetting, or light falling off on the edges. The image circle that these lenses project is sized smaller than that of 35mm film, and is unable to cover the full size.

ridinhome said:
Given the fact that you can pretty much achieve any effect in Photoshop these days, why would you use a filter with a digital camera? Or am I being simplistic?

Well... this is a potentially complicated question, if one were to take into considering balancing color temperatures of various light sources... but to keep it simple.

There are indeed still reasons to use a filter in front of the lens, and of course, situations where it's completely unnecessary.

Aside from the color balancing, there are two common filters which immediately come to mind, which would be impossible to truly reproduce in PS.

The first being a polarizing filter. Most people know this filter as the one you can rotate on the front of your lens (circular polarizing) to give you much deeper blue skies and saturated colors. Although that's reproducible in PS, the other thing this filter is capable of doing is remove glare from the surface of shiny objects (seeing yourself in a window, for example). This is something that could not be done in PS (easily, and accurately).

The other filter would be the ever common UV filter, or haze filter. Although it's possible to add more contrast after the fact, the effect is not quite the same as cutting down on the effects of UV light before it hits the sensor. It's just not the same thing.

Oh, and of course there's the protection a filter on the front of your lens provides. Nothing PS can do to prevent the front of your expensive lens from getting scratched or cracked.

See less See more

Save

ridinhome

Discussion Starter · #28 · Sep 2, 2009

jconly said:
Oh, and of course there's the protection a filter on the front of your lens provides. Nothing PS can do to prevent the front of your expensive lens from getting scratched or cracked.

:lol Possibly the MOST important reason to keep using a filter with your camera.

I've been reading up about the FD 85mm 1.2l / EF 85mm 1.2l, and I have to say I am lusting after that lens. Of course, am a long way away from plunking down big money on one of those babies.

On the other hand, I could buy it now, even though its a tricky lens to use. I figure since I know how to look at photographs, as long as I respect the power of the lens...

I keed, I keed....:twofinger

Save

mbodell

· #29 · Sep 2, 2009

Well I guess I could have worded that better, but a 50mm is supposed to be a 1:1 ratio relative to the human eye. (I know mathmatically it works out to 1 to 1 being the prime lens for that medium) And I meant relative to 35 mm, like my 150mm lens for a 4x5 is that same coverage ratio.

Save

21 - 29 of 29 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.

Top Contributors this Month